That looks like wayyy less seating than it used to have.

The failure of people in universities to apply the standards of the causal inference revolution when evaluating what has caused confidence in universities among Republicans and some independents to decline will eventually cause my confidence in universities to decline.

Is this true, that an impeachment of a former president (to disqualify from future office) only requires a majority vote in the Senate? That seems wrong.

Globalization and the China Shock: A Reassessment of Autor, Dorn, and Hanson · Econ Journal Watch : trade exposure, employment, wages

I’ve long since lost count of how many papers built on Autor and Colleagues’ famous “China Shock” papers.

Bob Kaestner gives us good reasons to really doubt the whole enterprise.

econjwatch.org/articles/glo...

It’s time for some game theory.

I thought I saw they could only do the small bits, like giving more funding to states that adopt voter ID and in-person voting, but not the 'require proof of citizenship to register' kind of things.

Election odds flip on election night sometimes.

I dont need to see any more of these graphs to believe prediction markets suck. They do. But every election there is an X% chance of seeing this reversal (where X is the predicted chance of the second place candidate winning).

🤞

How’d your dad do?

Congrats!

Btw - I don’t like “The authors” new house style of Emerald. Do you mind it?

Who is the better choice (not being sarcastic)? I’ve been unimpressed with the candidates broadly.

In Defense of Good Writing "Knowledge is Good"

I got irritated with reading another assertion that AI can outperform social scientists at our jobs. I find these arguments reveal both an intellectual laziness and a lack of appreciation for good writing, which is the heart of our work. I had thoughts.
mirandayaver.substack.com/p/in-defense...

In an ideal world. In a world where it’s very hard to find any reviewers; where incentives to review thoughtfully are minimal; and where a glut of AI-assisted submissions might make these problems even worse, I’m not leaving the review process that responsibility.

Maybe in medicine we are willing to tolerate some type 1 error, but if I can encourage a norm of eliminating it, all to the good. This is all just reheated credibility revolution argument.

Depends on your tolerance for Type 1/2 errors. I would rather take medicine or undergo procedures where a researcher has said “here’s why all else is equal between treatment and control” rather than “we can’t think of any meaningful confounds.” I’d rather them not be surprised by some new confound.

I disagree. It's not the reviewer's job to save a bad or dishonest researcher from their own work. In a world of time and effort constraints, relying on a gatekeeper to point out why a paper is flawed will often fail, so authors should affirmatively convince readers to believe them. My view.

Related - in a world of increasing partisan polarization, I'd rather be the party that has support in large urban areas (where federal juries are) and doesn't antagonize the rest of the world (where intl courts are).

Is there a world where a future administration extradites former administration officials for trials by international bodies?

Bc if I were Hegseth, I would seriously consider the difference between doing crimes here (jk pardon) and abroad (what do you mean, the ICC doesn't care about my pardon?).

For all sorts of reasons it's not the critic's job to think through the author's research design and identify problems. As long as incentives, biases, and the publishing process are what they are, few authors will honestly consider limits of their design and critics will never keep up.

Probably shouldn’t have titled the book “If I did it”.

Initially I had the same reaction, but I think I turned when I thought about how Kalla and Broockman incentivized people to watch Fox News. I don't see a principled way to differentiate media consumption experiments.

Hmm must be confusing fans with leadership of the athletic department.

Look, as a born and raised Tennessean, we have to give credit where credit is due. It nailed Kentucky and Alabama, whose basketball and football fans, respectively, must have provided plenty of training data.

This only holds if think presidential approval ratings measure anything meaningful in American politics today. Is focusing so much energy on them in both academic and journalistic work helpful for understanding the world?

(I don't think so.)

The Midwestern Congressman Whom Washington Should Remember An appreciation of the late Rep. Lee Hamilton by a veteran congressional reporter.

Read Politico's David Rogers on Lee Hamilton. www.politico.com/news/magazin...

I have some survey rcts now in the field. You’re right - on ICE they do not, as of today, follow elite cues. Appears they know what they like and will turn on elites who don’t take their preferred position. On less salient (but still partisan) issues, I see huge follow the leader effects.

Doesn’t quite demonstrate good causal reasoning. Is there a fundamental constraint in AI understanding causal inference, or is it simply that they are trained on databases of old papers pre-credibility revolution?

Huh, survey respondents differ from nonrespondents in unobservable and unpredictable ways.

To be clear I'm referring to OP, not Dan.